The Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education is committed to maintaining integrity in the publishing process and aims to adhere to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (COPE DOAJ OASPA WAME. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing — English) guidelines for ethical and transparent scholarly publishing.

Journal editors are encouraged to follow the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors, and reviewers are advised to refer to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers to ensure a rigorous peer-review process and maintain integrity of research under strict ethical policies. Allegations of misconduct will be investigated in accordance with the COPE guidelines as far as is practicable.

All parties [author(s), journal editors, peer reviewers, publisher (Alumni IN)] involved in publications of research papers in the Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education are expected to follow the highest standards of publication ethics. This includes all parties treating each other with respect, dignity; and without discrimination, harassment, bullying or retaliation. The policies and procedures of the journal support its editors, reviewers, and authors in performing their ethical duties under the set guidelines.

Publication ethics and publication malpractice statements of the Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education are based, in large part, on the guidelines and standards developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (COPE Council. Ethics toolkit for a successful editorial office: A COPE Guide — English). The relevant duties and expectations of the authors, reviewers, and editors of the journal are listed below:

---

1. Ethics and Responsibilities of Authors

1.1 Responsibilities of Authors

Authors of a manuscript should present original research with an accurate account of the work performed along with an objective discussion of its significance. Authors are responsible for the truth and accuracy of their data. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. Upon request, the authors are required to send relevant documentation (in the form of raw data, samples, records, etc.) for verifications of their validity. Research data after publication should be retained by the authors as per the policies of the organisation to which they belong.

A manuscript should contain sufficient details and references to permit the readers to replicate the work, if required. Fraudulent or deliberate inaccurate statements or data constitute unethical scientific behaviour, and may lead to rejection of a manuscript or even retraction of a published article. The authors should also ensure that they have written entirely original work. In case data/statements/derivation of another published work have been reproduced, they must be appropriately cited or quoted satisfying the existing laws on plagiarism. Excessive and inappropriate self-citations, text recycling or coordinated efforts among several authors to collectively self-cite are strongly discouraged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behaviour, and is unacceptable.

The author(s) may ensure that a submitted manuscript reports an original work, and that its contents have not been published elsewhere (partially or in full) in any form or language; unless the reported work concerns an expansion of a previous work that is duly cited. A single study should not be unduly split up into several parts that are not completely separable for scientific reporting for the purpose of multiple submissions. Concurrent submission of one manuscript to more than one journal, or before a decision is communicated by the first journal, and submitting an already published paper to another journal is considered unethical behaviour.

If authors use their previously published or under-review work, they must properly acknowledge and cite the original work, and clearly identify the unique contributions of the submitted manuscript compared to the earlier work. Authors must also ensure that re-use, if any, is compliant with copyright policies. The Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education will deal with cases of text-recycling according to COPE guidelines (COPE Council. Handling concurrent and duplicate submissions - English).

If a similar or the same manuscript is later found to have been published elsewhere in any form, the publisher (Alumni IN) of the Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education shall remain free to report or lodge a complaint to that publisher(s) and institution(s)/organisation(s) to which the author(s) belong.

1.2 Authorship & Authors Contribution

The names of the authors are to be listed in the manuscript in order of their contributions to the manuscript, and all authors take responsibility for their own contributions. Authorship should be limited to those who have:

1. Made significant contribution to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software/model used in the work; or have drafted the work or substantively revised it;
2. Approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version that involves the author's contribution to the study);
3. Agreed to be personally accountable for their own contributions and for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work (even ones in which an author was not personally involved) are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature (COPE Council. COPE Discussion Document: Authorship).

All those who have made substantial contributions should be listed as co-authors. Those who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the manuscript (e.g., language editing, etc.) should be recognised under the Acknowledgement Section.

Each author is responsible for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. For transparency, authors should include an Author Contribution Statement outlining their individual contributions to the manuscript as:

• Conceptualisation
• Data generation
• Data analysis
• Funding acquisition
• Investigation
• Methodology
• Project guidance
• Software development and validation
• Writing of manuscript for presentation of work and editing

[Guideline: CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy)]

The corresponding/submitting author is responsible for including the contributions of all authors in the manuscript before the REFERENCES section at the time of submission. The submitting author is responsible for providing the contributions of all authors at submission time so that this statement can be published in their article.

Authors should carefully consider the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide a definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. Request for any addition, deletion or rearrangement of author names in the authorship list under exceptional circumstances should be made before the manuscript is accepted for publication. Request for such a change should include specific reason(s) for the requested change in author list, along with a written confirmation (e-mail/letter) from all (original submission and proposed) authors that they agree with the proposed addition, removal, or rearrangement without any conflict of interest. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief on the matter would be final and binding to all concerned. Post-publication no change in the list (addition/deletion) and order of authors is allowed. Authorship disputes, if any, are to be dealt with by the author(s), and the board shall have no responsibility in determining who the actual author is.

The corresponding author should ensure that:

• All co-authors have agreed to full content of a manuscript, including the author list and author contribution statements;
• There is no conflict of interest;
• The submission satisfies all stated policies of the journal; and
• All authors have agreed to its submission to the journal for publication.

Post-submission of a manuscript, the corresponding author shall remain responsible for the accuracy of its full content in the print-proof, including the names of co-authors, addresses, and affiliations. After publication, the corresponding author shall be responsible for appropriate response to any query about the published article through interactions with the co-authors, as deemed fit.

The Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education does not support any unethical practice that inappropriately attributes authorship credits to a research output. Authorship misconduct includes:

• Ghost authorship (exclusion of significant contributors)
• Gift authorship (giving authorship to someone who has not made contributions to increase the influence or enhance the chances of publication)
• Substitution Authorship (replacement of rightful author(s) with others, often done without the original author's knowledge or consent)
• Coercive Authorship (involves forcing, compelling, or pressurizing the original author or researcher to include name(s) in the author list mainly due to power dynamics within an institution)
• Artificial Collaboration (fabricating or overstating collaborations to increase research's apparent credibility)

If suspicion is raised about authorship, the peer review process shall be suspended and relevant investigation will be conducted by the journal to identify if there is any guest, ghost, or gift authorship. Based on the findings of the investigations, authors shall be advised to correct the authorship list (COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Ghost, guest, or gift authorship in a submitted manuscript — English).

1.3 Pre- and Post-publication Corrections

Authors have an obligation to correct any misreporting once they discover it during the processing of the manuscript, and post-publication. In such a case, author(s) should immediately write to the Editor-in-Chief and explain in what way the error is impacting the manuscript. A decision on how to correct the manuscript (Erratum, Corrigendum, including retraction) will depend on the nature of the error.

Minor corrections like spelling mistakes or grammatical errors which do not alter the understanding of the content of the article will not be corrected after publication. An errata will be published only when mistakes are recognised in the published article which remained unnoticed during editing and layout setting in figures, tables, etc., and have caused incorrect understanding of the article. A corrigendum will be published when the authors realise that the errors in the published article could affect the validity of the scientific content, or its accuracy.

If a reader detects a genuine error in a published article, he can submit the same as a letter to the Editor-in-Chief. The author, editor, and reviewer would then assess the validity of the error pointed out. Appropriate corrigenda may be published for genuine error(s) with reference to the letter along with the answer(s) provided by the author(s).

Retractions are issued if there is clear evidence that the reported findings in an article are scientifically unreliable/unethical/plagiarism beyond an acceptable limit. Any decision on the above shall be taken by the Editorial Board of the journal.

When post-publication discussion/critiques are submitted to the journal, known as 'letters to the editor', original authors of the critiqued article are invited to write a 'response' or 'reply'. Post-publication discussions may be submitted within a 3-month period following the publication of the article, scientifically justifying the need for post-publication discussions. It should not exceed 3 double-spaced manuscript pages including references, figures, tables, and captions. The title of the Discussion should begin with "Discussion of" followed by the title of the original article along with its DOI. The Editorial Board may consider a post-publication discussion if it is established to be constructive and useful to the community, after being peer-reviewed.

1.4 Conflict of Interest & Competing Interests

During submission of a manuscript, all authors and co-authors are required to disclose any potential conflict of interest (e.g., employment, consulting fee, sponsoring organisation policy/regulation, research contract, patent licence, advisory affiliations, etc.) either stating that "No conflict of interest exists" or describing the nature of any potential conflict.

Authors are responsible for obtaining any permission necessary to include images or artwork in their articles for which they do not hold copyright or to adopt any such images or artwork for inclusion in their articles. The publisher of the journal does not call for such permission, and presumes that the author(s) have taken due care of the same.

The source(s) of financial support for a reported research work should also be disclosed by the authors in the manuscript.

1.5 Journal Publishing Agreement

While submitting a manuscript to the Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education, the authors will give an undertaking for maintaining transparency and integrity and practicing publishing by submitting the "Journal Publishing Agreement Form" and will certify the following:

1. Each author has participated sufficiently in one or more activities of the reported research work (conception, design of reported research, analysis of data, writing of the said manuscript), and is responsible for them. The contribution of each author has been mentioned in the manuscript. All authors have duly seen and agreed to the version of the manuscript submitted to the Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education.
2. The contents of the manuscript have not been published in any form, partially or in full, anywhere till date. The authors have neither submitted nor shall be submitting the same anywhere else for publication until a decision on its publication is communicated by the Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education.
3. The data and results embodied in the manuscript are from an original research work of the author(s).
4. The author(s) have satisfied themselves that the full contents of the manuscript including text, data in any form in text/table/graph, photograph, illustration/figure, or in any other form do not attract plagiarism, including text-recycling, or self-plagiarism regulations in force at the time of submission/publication.
5. The author(s) undertake full responsibility for the data/statements/opinions contained in the manuscript. The publisher (Alumni IN) of the Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education and its officials are fully absolved of the same by the author(s).
6. Due mention of the organisation(s) where the research work was undertaken has been made and funding obtained is duly acknowledged.
7. There is no conflict of interest in the manuscript. Competing interest in disclosure of the research work has been considered by the author(s).
8. The authors have included information on any pre-print submission of the manuscript, and agree to update the pre-print record with a DOI and a URL link to the Version of Record, if their manuscript is accepted and published in the Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education.
9. In case the reported research work in the manuscript involved the use of humans or animals as subjects in any form, such work was carried out by the authors in accordance with the applicable laws and ethics. Informed written consents of the human subjects were taken by the authors, and are on record.
10. The authors have conformed to the highest standards of all ethical policies of the Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education in the submission of accurate data/statements, and that they acknowledge the work of others when applicable.
11. The revision(s) as per comments by reviewers/editors will be carried out in a time-bound manner. The authors agree that, if requested for verification by the editors, they shall make available the data upon which the above manuscript is based.
12. Unless an extraordinary situation, the manuscript will not be withdrawn during the course of review/processing. A written permission of the Editor-in-Chief shall be required for the same.

1.6 Ethical Oversight Policy

As per the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) "ethical oversight should include, but not limited to, policies on consent to publication, publication on vulnerable populations, ethical conduct of research using human subjects, ethical conduct of research using animals, handling confidential data and ethical business/marketing practices" (COPE Council. Ethics toolkit for a successful editorial office: A COPE Guide — English), and is adopted by the Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education.

Authors are required to satisfy themselves that no violation of Ethical Oversight Policy has occurred through their submission of a manuscript to the Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education.

In case the reported research work in the manuscript involved use of humans or animals as subjects in any form, the authors do confirm that such work was carried out by them in accordance with the applicable laws and ethics. Informed written consents of the human subjects were taken by the authors, and are on record or described within the article.

1.7 Authorship and Artificial Intelligence Tools Policy

Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT or other Large Language Models (LLM) may not be considered or listed as a paper's author because these tools cannot take responsibility for the work, sign copyright or license agreements, or assert the presence or absence of conflict.

The use of generative AI (GenAI) and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process should be done with human oversight and control, and authors should carefully review and edit the manuscript. Authors who use GenAI technologies and tools in the writing of a manuscript, production of images or graphical elements of the paper, or in the collection and analysis of data, must be transparent in disclosing in the Materials and Methods (or similar section or in the Declarations section of the manuscript) how the AI tool was used and which tool was used.

Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, even those parts produced by an AI tool, and are thus liable for any breach of publication ethics (COPE position statement).

1.8 Indulging in Misconducts

Author(s) must not indulge in any form of research misconducts such as:

• Self-plagiarism or text recycling
• Plagiarized authorship
• Data or image manipulation/fabrication
• Breaches of copyright or use of third-party material without proper permissions
• Citation manipulation
• Duplicate submission or publication
• Misrepresentation of affiliations
• Peer review manipulation
• Failure to disclose competing interests
• Unethical research practices

Manuscripts containing citations intended solely to artificially inflate the citation count of a specific author or journal constitute misconduct, and authors should avoid such misconduct; otherwise will face penalties for citation manipulation. Similarly, manuscripts with fabricated or falsified experimental results, such as manipulated data or Figures/photographs/images, constitute misconduct. Any detected data fabrication and falsification/image manipulation that violates ethical guidelines will be subjected to investigation and penalties. Research misconducts mentioned above are indicative only and not exhaustive.

The Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education takes all forms of misconduct seriously and will take all necessary action, in accordance with COPE guidelines (COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Systematic manipulation of the publication process — English) to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

Every author agrees that their work does not violate the copyright or any other third-party rights, nor does it contain any illegal, obscene, or defamatory content. Every author acknowledges that they will bear full responsibility for any legal violations.

Upon receipt of a query or concern regarding research misconduct, the Board shall promptly respond to such reporting. The concern shall be communicated to the author by the Editorial Board, and it is binding on the author to provide explanations for the misconduct.

Upon discovery of research misconduct, at any stage from submission of work to post-publication, the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the handling Editor, has full authority to reject the article or retract publication, as the case may be. In cases of repeated breaches, the Editor-in-Chief also reserves the right to inform and notify the author's institution(s)/organisation(s) to which the author(s) belong about the misconduct.

The publisher of the journal may also disable the account of the concerned author(s) with the journal for all future submissions for a period of one to three years, as decided by the Editorial Board.

1.9 Article Sharing Policy

Article sharing enables scholarly collaboration and discussion, and is essential to the progression of research. As per the policy of the Journal, authors can share their articles as described below:

Submitted Version/Author's Original Manuscript (AOM)

This is the author's version that has not been peer-reviewed, nor has any value been added (formatting or copy editing) to it by the Journal Editorial Board. AOM can be posted at any time on the Author's personal website, or institutional repository, in not-for-profit subject-based preprint servers or repositories, etc. However, the deposited version should not be updated later to look like the final version of record.

Posting on a preprint server before submitting a manuscript to a journal is not considered to be duplicate publication, and this will not jeopardize consideration for publication in the Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education. The authors are required to include details of a preprint posting, including a DOI or other persistent identifier, while submitting their manuscript.

Upon receipt of acceptance of a manuscript for publication in the Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education, the corresponding author must agree to the terms of the relevant publishing agreement. After publication of the final version of the work in the Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education, the preprint shall be immediately linked with the published version (the 'Version of Record') by the corresponding author(s).

Accepted Version

This is the version of the manuscript that has been peer reviewed and incorporates all amendments made during the peer review process, and has been accepted by the journal's editor, but prior to the final published version.

The author can post Accepted Manuscript (AM) on their personal website at any point after publication of his/her article (including posting to Facebook, Google groups, and LinkedIn etc.). Embargo periods, typically 12 months from the date of first online publication, usually apply if the AM is posted to an institutional or subject repository, or to a scholarly collaboration network such as ResearchGate.

After publication of the final version of the work in the Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education, it should be linked with the published version with the following text:

However, the article must not be made to look like the final version of record.

Final Version of Record (the final published version)

This is the final, definitive, citable version of the author's paper, which has been copyedited, typeset, had metadata applied, and has been allocated a DOI (Digital Object Identifier).

As an open access journal under CC BY 4.0, authors are permitted to freely share the final published PDF with proper attribution for scholarly, non-commercial purposes. Authors may post the published version on personal websites, institutional repositories, and scholarly networks.

The following statement should appear with shared versions: "This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. Published by Alumni IN in Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education."

---

2. Ethics and Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Potential reviewers should provide accurate personal and professional information regarding their expertise, including verifiable and accurate contact information. On receiving an invitation for review, it is advised that a response (whether available for review or not) be sent within a reasonable time frame. One should accept to undertake the review if s(he) is qualified to judge a particular manuscript, and able to return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time frame.

Impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct (COPE Council. COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers — English & COPE Case 12-12: Compromised peer review system in published papers).

All manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the manuscript with anyone or directly contact the author(s). Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should express their views objectively with supporting arguments and references, if necessary.

A reviewer should also bring potential ethical issues in a manuscript to the attention of the Editorial Board, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration, and any other published document(s) of which the reviewer has personal knowledge.

Reviewers who have accepted reviewing assignments of manuscript are normally expected to submit their review comments to the concerned editor within three weeks from receipt of the manuscript or a mutually agreed time frame.

Reviewer should declare to the Editorial Board any potential competing interests, and should decline to review a manuscript with which he (she) believes to have competing interests resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships, or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript.

Unpublished contents disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by a reviewer in any form, including his (her) own research without the written consent of the author(s). The Editorial Board should be informed of the same by the reviewer. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Personal criticism of the author(s) is inappropriate, and must be avoided.

On accepting a review assignment, a reviewer should follow highest level of reviewing ethics. The Editorial Board of the journal lays emphasis on the same, and de-lists reviewers who do not follow the code of practice.

---

3. Ethics and Responsibilities of Editorial Board Members

All the members of the editorial board should declare potential conflicts of interest, including any concurrent editorships and editorial board memberships etc. while joining the editorial team of the journal (COPE Council. COPE Guidelines: Editorial board participation — English).

An Editor shall ensure that the peer review process is unbiased, timely, and of high technical quality; and shall also maintain high technical standards for the manuscripts that are recommended for publication. Research manuscripts are typically reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers of requisite expertise, and where necessary, the editor may seek the opinions of additional reviewers.

The editor shall select reviewers with expertise in the relevant technical field, considering the need for appropriate, inclusive, and diverse unbiased representation. All Editors shall ensure the integrity of the double-blind review policy of the journal by not revealing the identity of the author(s) of a manuscript to the reviewers of that manuscript, and vice versa. An Editor also protects the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all external communications.

An Editor shall give due considerations to all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by the reviewers to determine whether there is any potential for bias.

When evaluating a manuscript for publication, in addition to considering the standard criteria pertaining to the rigour of the manuscript; adequate weights are given to other attributes such as the extent and quality of its presentation, reliability and authenticity of data and statements, and contribution to new knowledge.

A decision on recommendation for a manuscript by an Editor is normally arrived at through internal consultations with the concerned Editorial Team. Recommendation of an Editor on a manuscript is forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for a final decision. After technical editing at the desk of the Editor-in-Chief, the corresponding author is given another opportunity to incorporate necessary improvements in the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief then makes necessary technical consultations with the Editor or a technical expert, as deemed fit, before arriving at the final decision on acceptance of a manuscript.

AI tools cannot serve as reviewers or as decision-issuing editors. Any use of AI tools in peer review (e.g. for data assessment, language editing etc.) must be clearly disclosed to authors in the review form (reviewers) or decision letter (editors).

---

4. Data Availability and Transparency

The journal encourages authors to make research data publicly available whenever possible, in accordance with FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). Authors should include a Data Availability Statement indicating where data can be accessed or explaining any restrictions.

When data cannot be shared due to ethical, legal, or commercial restrictions, authors must explain these limitations. Upon reasonable request and where permissible, authors should provide data to editors or reviewers for verification purposes.

---